Cardozo vs Brooklyn vs Rutgers-Newark vs Hofstra(with 20K)? Forum

[BeachandRun23]

I'd say it's a toss up between Rutgers and Cardozo. Rutgers will definitely be cheaper after 1 year in-state, and there are good job prospects in NJ in gov't work. Also, Rutgers has a decent representation in big law, and if you're top of the class (I recognize this is a big "if') and have LR etc., you will have access to those jobs. Cardozo also has a decent representation in big law if you're top of the class, but living in NY and paying the higher tuition will drain you financially. You can live in the Bergen County suburbs of NJ and live in a nice 1 BR for about 1100 a month. I'd pick Rutgers personally, but I went there for undergrad, so I'm a bit biased.

This. If you go to rutgers the debt wont be so crushing. The crushing debt from cardozo wont be worth the small (5% or less maybe) increase in biglaw prospects. Rutgers also tends to have really good clerkship stats for a school ranked that low.

I'd go to rutgers. With minimal debt and chances for employment in NJ, as long as you can find a legal job, you should be pretty happy upon graduation.

[christmas mouse]

3.95 is a good gpa. Try to use your hofstra 20k to get money from these other schools. Seriously try to do this. If your LSAT was at 163 you could damn near get a full ride at a couple of these schools. Not gonna tell you to retake because I know you don't want to hear it, so instead I'll tell you a little story.

I knew a boy who did so poorly on his first LSAT he cancelled the score while still at the test center. The second time he took it he scored a 156. This boy really wanted to be a lawyer, but knew that with his sub 3.0 gpa and 156 it wouldn't be worth the money. So he studied and studied more and learned the ins and outs of the test and when he was ready he took it again and scored a 167! Even with his crap gpa he was able to get damn near full rides at all the schools you listed, making his law school decision a lot easier and much less pressure filled to get big law or bust all over himself. But I digress.

If I were you and was 100% sure I didn't want to take the LSAT again I would try to negotiate money from every school and if I got some I would go back to hofstra and ask for more and if they gave more I would repeat with every other school.

If these truly are your final options I have the best advice ever for you: go to the school which has the dumbest students. Give yourself the best chance to be at the top because the middle of each of these places is like pergatory. At the top no matter which school you are at you'll get something decent. Good luck.

[FeelTheHeat]

If these truly are your final options I have the best advice ever for you: go to the school which has the dumbest students. Give yourself the best chance to be at the top because the middle of each of these places is like pergatory. At the top no matter which school you are at you'll get something decent. Good luck.

Lost advice dog :/

[lawfreak]

3.95 is a good gpa. Try to use your hofstra 20k to get money from these other schools. Seriously try to do this. If your LSAT was at 163 you could damn near get a full ride at a couple of these schools. Not gonna tell you to retake because I know you don't want to hear it, so instead I'll tell you a little story.

If I were you and was 100% sure I didn't want to take the LSAT again I would try to negotiate money from every school and if I got some I would go back to hofstra and ask for more and if they gave more I would repeat with every other school.

If these truly are your final options I have the best advice ever for you: go to the school which has the dumbest students. Give yourself the best chance to be at the top because the middle of each of these places is like pergatory. At the top no matter which school you are at you'll get something decent. Good luck.

Thanks for your advice! I just want to repeat again that I already maxed out on LSAT takes so I CANNOT take it again. Also, is it possible for a school to renege on their offer if I negotiate for money? Which school has the dumbest students? How am I supposed to know? How do I negotiate for money? Do I call or email? If I call what should I say? If I negotiate and they do offer me scholarship, do I have to take it?

Thanks again for giving me an honest and normal response, unlike many others here.

[lawfreak]

I also want to ask if everyone reading this thread can please vote, EVEN if you think retake e.t.c., assuming that I'm absolutely forced to go to one of these schools, which would you choose?

Thank you!

[OGR3]

You can get a waiver for a fourth test or you can wait a couple years, get some work experience, study hard and retake when the two-year limit is up.

http://www.lsac.org/JD/LSAT/about-the-LSAT.asp

None of these schools at these prices is worth it. If you can't do better you should not go to law school.

[BarbellDreams]

Use Hofstra scholly to get at least SOME money from Rutgers, then go there (all assuming you absolutely wont retake). Dozo is the best placement, but at sticker its simply not a smart choice.

[christmas mouse]

99% sure a school cannot renege on it's offer if you try to negotiate. If they did, that's about the worst PR they could ever ask for.

I don't want to speculate which school has the dumbest students because I go to Brooklyn and I've heard enough t14'ers shit on my school that I stay away from that game, but, and I know you aren't gonna like this, the schools LSAT for incoming 1Ls might shed some light on it. (not taking any shots at you, just in my experience LSAT is a better indicator than gpa because undergrads vary with grade inflation and it isn't uncommon for someone very capable to slack off in undergrad and dedicate themself to law school).

How to negotiate? I'd say send an email to the admissions person who has had the most contact with you (sent the admissions email, sent relevant info after admissions, etc.). They will write you back dissuading you from trying to negotiate, but telling you exactly who to send your negotiation email to. Send to them and receive money. IMO the best negotiation email let's the school know they are your number once choice, but you can't afford and this other school gave you this much. You're honored to be accepted, but no matter how much you try to look past it, there just really seems to be no way you can say no to the money. Tell them if they can make the decision easier for you you will definitely go to their school.

Others might have different strategies, which might even be better, but this worked for me.

[rman1201]

99% sure a school cannot renege on it's offer if you try to negotiate. If they did, that's about the worst PR they could ever ask for.

I don't want to speculate which school has the dumbest students because I go to Brooklyn and I've heard enough t14'ers shit on my school that I stay away from that game, but, and I know you aren't gonna like this, the schools LSAT for incoming 1Ls might shed some light on it. (not taking any shots at you, just in my experience LSAT is a better indicator than gpa because undergrads vary with grade inflation and it isn't uncommon for someone very capable to slack off in undergrad and dedicate themself to law school).

How to negotiate? I'd say send an email to the admissions person who has had the most contact with you (sent the admissions email, sent relevant info after admissions, etc.). They will write you back dissuading you from trying to negotiate, but telling you exactly who to send your negotiation email to. Send to them and receive money. IMO the best negotiation email let's the school know they are your number once choice, but you can't afford and this other school gave you this much. You're honored to be accepted, but no matter how much you try to look past it, there just really seems to be no way you can say no to the money. Tell them if they can make the decision easier for you you will definitely go to their school.

Others might have different strategies, which might even be better, but this worked for me.

By your logic wouldn't the T14er's have the highest LSATs, therefore possess more intelligence, and be in a better position to tell you what is and isn't a good idea?

[christmas mouse]

99% sure a school cannot renege on it's offer if you try to negotiate. If they did, that's about the worst PR they could ever ask for.

I don't want to speculate which school has the dumbest students because I go to Brooklyn and I've heard enough t14'ers shit on my school that I stay away from that game, but, and I know you aren't gonna like this, the schools LSAT for incoming 1Ls might shed some light on it. (not taking any shots at you, just in my experience LSAT is a better indicator than gpa because undergrads vary with grade inflation and it isn't uncommon for someone very capable to slack off in undergrad and dedicate themself to law school).

How to negotiate? I'd say send an email to the admissions person who has had the most contact with you (sent the admissions email, sent relevant info after admissions, etc.). They will write you back dissuading you from trying to negotiate, but telling you exactly who to send your negotiation email to. Send to them and receive money. IMO the best negotiation email let's the school know they are your number once choice, but you can't afford and this other school gave you this much. You're honored to be accepted, but no matter how much you try to look past it, there just really seems to be no way you can say no to the money. Tell them if they can make the decision easier for you you will definitely go to their school.

Others might have different strategies, which might even be better, but this worked for me.

By your logic wouldn't the T14er's have the highest LSATs, therefore possess more intelligence, and be in a better position to tell you what is and isn't a good idea?

Let me qualify my statement

By dumb/intelligent I was speaking exclusively about aptitude for law school. If your question is do I think students with higher LSAT scores are in a better position to do well in law school? My answer is yes. Will there be exceptions to this? Yes. Do I think aptitude for law school has any bearing on telling people what is and isn't a good idea? No.

With that said, rman1201 could be 100% right. I definitely don't go to a T14, so my advice could be terrible.

[FiveSermon]

99% sure a school cannot renege on it's offer if you try to negotiate. If they did, that's about the worst PR they could ever ask for.

I don't want to speculate which school has the dumbest students because I go to Brooklyn and I've heard enough t14'ers shit on my school that I stay away from that game, but, and I know you aren't gonna like this, the schools LSAT for incoming 1Ls might shed some light on it. (not taking any shots at you, just in my experience LSAT is a better indicator than gpa because undergrads vary with grade inflation and it isn't uncommon for someone very capable to slack off in undergrad and dedicate themself to law school).

How to negotiate? I'd say send an email to the admissions person who has had the most contact with you (sent the admissions email, sent relevant info after admissions, etc.). They will write you back dissuading you from trying to negotiate, but telling you exactly who to send your negotiation email to. Send to them and receive money. IMO the best negotiation email let's the school know they are your number once choice, but you can't afford and this other school gave you this much. You're honored to be accepted, but no matter how much you try to look past it, there just really seems to be no way you can say no to the money. Tell them if they can make the decision easier for you you will definitely go to their school.

Others might have different strategies, which might even be better, but this worked for me.

By your logic wouldn't the T14er's have the highest LSATs, therefore possess more intelligence, and be in a better position to tell you what is and isn't a good idea?

Let me qualify my statement

By dumb/intelligent I was speaking exclusively about aptitude for law school. If your question is do I think students with higher LSAT scores are in a better position to do well in law school? My answer is yes. Will there be exceptions to this? Yes. Do I think aptitude for law school has any bearing on telling people what is and isn't a good idea? No.

With that said, rman1201 could be 100% right. I definitely don't go to a T14, so my advice could be terrible.

So by your logic about 90% of URM's are less apt to do well in law school since their LSAT scores are on general lower by a significant amount to non urms.

[christmas mouse]

So by your logic about 90% of URM's are less apt to do well in law school since their LSAT scores are on general lower by a significant amount to non urms.

Really now? You're gonna come on this thread and bash urms? For shame.

By my logic OP would have a better chance of being top 10% at Cooley over Harvard. That is the only "logical" assumption that comes from my reasoning. Where do you come off generalizing all urms, oh excuse me 90% of urms, as incapable of high LSAT scores? This may shock a logical genius such as yourself, but I would guess urms at T14 schools have higher LSATS than non urms at the schools OP is considering.

You want to tell OP he has a better chance of being top 10% at Cardozo over Hofstra then be my guest.

Find someone else to troll, I've checked my bases and I'm as PC as a prospective students brochure from a liberal arts undergrad.

[FiveSermon]

So by your logic about 90% of URM's are less apt to do well in law school since their LSAT scores are on general lower by a significant amount to non urms.

Really now? You're gonna come on this thread and bash urms? For shame.

By my logic OP would have a better chance of being top 10% at Cooley over Harvard. That is the only "logical" assumption that comes from my reasoning. Where do you come off generalizing all urms, oh excuse me 90% of urms, as incapable of high LSAT scores? This may shock a logical genius such as yourself, but I would guess urms at T14 schools have higher LSATS than non urms at the schools OP is considering.

You want to tell OP he has a better chance of being top 10% at Cardozo over Hofstra then be my guest.

Find someone else to troll, I've checked my bases and I'm as PC as a prospective students brochure from a liberal arts undergrad.

I'm saying you should qualify your statement. It is a statistical FACT that URM's as a whole have lower LSAT scores. This doesn't reflect on their actual performance in law schools in comparison to non URM's so your entire argument is flawed unless you qualify it further to not include URMs. Hurr Durr. You must have failed reading comp.

[rman1201]

The point is, going somewhere you feel you'll do better because of a high lsat for the school (or gpa) is a very bad idea. Writing law exams is nothing like the LSAT or Undergraduate exams, so it's very hard to guage where you'll end up just off these factors - and if you underperform you'll end up with your scholarship taken away and no job prospects.

[christmas mouse]

I didn't bring urms into the conversation nor did i ever claim to make an all encompassing statement about the relationship between LSAT score and law school performance. OP basically asked how to gauge which of his 4 schools would offer him the best chance of finishing near the top of his class. I told him IMO LSAT score is a better gauge of this than GPA because there are too many variables in undergrad GPA, whereas the LSAT is a test that puts everyone on the same level and allows for a better comparison of prospective law school success.

I sufficiently qualified my statement when I said there are exceptions and made it clear that this was my opinion based on my experience. You two are misconstruing my intentions and attacking my advice as if I was submitting it to a scholarly journal. If you both disagree with my assessment then please tell OP a better way to gauge which of the 4 schools will give him the best chance of finishing at the top. There truly is no "right" answer because there is no way to see into the future and make any guarantees. You have both made credited arguments, but they miss the point of this thread and the question that was asked.

In this situation I still believe LSAT is the best way to gauge the aptitude for doing well on law school exams because there is no better way to do it and because LSAT can be representative of numerous factors. If you disagree that LSAT score is an indicator of how well one can interpret, comprehend, and isolate key points in convoluted writing then you probably believe a high score is achievable by learning how to take the test. In which case I'm guessing you believe that since anyone can spend the time to learn the intricacies of the test, it is only an indicator of how well one can take the LSAT. If that is your opinion, I tend to agree with you on this for the most part. But in that case the LSAT doesn't just show who is good at taking the LSAT, it shows who is dedicated and studious enough to put that time in, which I think is a pretty big indicator of potential law school performance. Writing a good exam is a combination of putting in the work to learn the law, learn how to apply the law to the specifications of your professor, and put it all together and write a coherent exam under limited time constraints.

Look, I may be wrong. If so please enlighten me and the OP, keeping in mind that his question actually demands an answer. What is a better way to try and predict the potential aptitude for writing good law school exams than the LSAT? Remember though, taking shots at my opinion without offering your own isn't the sort of answer he is looking for, and telling him that there is no way to predict this is also not the answer he is looking for. He's looking for the best way to make this assessment, not a theory that can stand up to the TLS version of strict scrutiny.

BTW I didn't fail reading comp. I scored well on the LSAT and I did it through tons of consistent practice. That same discipline I used in studying for the LSAT I use everyday in law school and so far I've done well there too. I'm also not wealthy, so I didn't use any test review programs. Just old tests, all of them to be exact. I don't buy in to the opinion that economic situation is an impenetrable barrier to success on the LSAT. So unless your argument is that urms are inherently incapable of doing well on the LSAT, I don't see why it is necessary to distinguish LSAT takers in the context of OP's query.

[lawfreak]

So bottom line: which should I choose?

[rman1201]

So bottom line: which should I choose?

Rutgers.

[lawfreak]

Rutgers

Thanks. Anyone else?

[OGR3]

Rutgers

Thanks. Anyone else?

Get yourself one of these and retake.

[lawfreak]

Rutgers

Thanks. Anyone else?

Get yourself one of these and retake.

Again...to repeat for the slow people, which should I choose bottom line?

[FeelTheHeat]

Again...to repeat for the slow people, which should I choose bottom line?

Just to be sure, am I supposed to read the question slower?

[lawfreak]

Just to be sure, am I supposed to read the question slower?

Just get lost you dumb asshole!! no one has the patience to read your "funny" lines but yourself

[FeelTheHeat]

Just to be sure, am I supposed to read the question slower?

Just get lost you dumb asshole!! no one has the patience to read you're "funny" lines but yourself

Your*

[FiveSermon]

Just to be sure, am I supposed to read the question slower?

Just get lost you dumb asshole!! no one has the patience to read you're "funny" lines but yourself

Your*

Oh snap.

[Hank Chill]

I don't understand your aversion to retaking. If you got a 4.0 in a hard science you have the study skills to get, at the absolute least, a 160+.

However, if these are your options then go to Rutgers.